kowenicki Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 The i is unbiased?? Ha ha haa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 59 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said: Again, nothing like being selective with the facts. 45% applies to people earning over £150k. You seem to have missed (at least) Greece and Finland off your list too both of which are higher according to the same source (wiki) I don't think it really matters what the tax rates are in Greece if they never bother collecting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 22 minutes ago, Stevie_J said: Whoah! What the fuck's wrong with cornflakes?! Regular eating of them, and similar shite, can result in people claiming a rise in the tax allowance from £6500 to £11500 has made little difference to low because of 7 years of very low inflation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 18 minutes ago, kowenicki said: YOU be honest. The deficit has gone from over £100bn per annum to £15bn per annum. So the rate that debt is increasing has slowed very, very dramatically and is on course to create a surplus which will then begin to reduce debt. That's the honest and complete answer. Every Labour government has left the country with more debt and higher unemployment than at the start of their tenure. Every one. If they get in you could almost argue it might be worth just cutting out the middleman, burning a few hundred billion pounds and then letting another party get on with the thankless task of trying to sort it out again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Is there any way to ignore a thread? Frankly this one's just turning into partisan bullshit, and since I've voted already it'd be nice not to have endless posts turn up in my Unread Content results for the next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View Of Golden Gate Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/30/disabled-readers-austerity-disability-cuts Someone read this and tell me the cuts are for the best, and explain how. Don't say this is just three extreme cases, because I know of people are suffering because of cuts. Has May and/or her friends and family suffered? Have Tory benefactors suffered? Tell me how this is the society you not only want to live in, but will actively pursue? Tell me it is not time for a change, this government is broken. No-one can tell me why the Tories are the correct choice, the main argument is that they are the best of a bad bunch. Labour are trying to be positive, trying to inspire and grow. The Tories are cutting more and more, what happens when we stop overspending? Do we magically have the ability to start spending more? Or do they stay at the same depressing rate? This government are not trying to grow, they are trying to survive election by election. Problem is that is leaving some just trying to survive day to day, ask May and her cohorts how she intends to help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 1 hour ago, opinions4u said: It's only 2% NI for higher rate tax payers. It's 12% up to UEL and 2% above that. Your post could be misinterpreted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) On the general tax point of higher earners should pay more... Do do people understand how percentages and thresholds work? Do people understand that someone earning 100k pays a lot more than 5 x the tax of someone earning 20k. I'm not sure vast swathes of the population get even this basic fact. Edited June 1, 2017 by kowenicki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, kowenicki said: It's 12% up to UEL and 2% above that. Your post could be misinterpreted. Fair enough. But nobody's paying 57% in tax against income (notwithstanding Brown's rather nasty removal of tax threshold at £100k and the marginal rate that creates). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 18 hours ago, kowenicki said: "Its not very different after inflation". It's more by about £1000 per annum after inflation. So it's more under a conservative government than a labour government whatever you factor in or attempt to spin. Do you know how "children in poverty is calculated"? It's a loaded calculation. It's not an absolute. 15 hours ago, HarryBosch said: £10,946.20 in 2009 = £13,878.57 in 2017 (based on 3% inflation). £14,780 - £13,878.57 = £901.43 (or £17/week). If you consider that VAT was increased to 20% from January 2010 and factor in cuts to benefits, tax credits and council tax allowance, I don't imagine many minimum wagers are feeling the significant benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 10 minutes ago, kowenicki said: Do do people understand how percentages and thresholds work? Do people understand that someone earning 100k pays a lot more than 5 x the tax of someone earning 20k. I'm not sure vast swathes of the population get even this basic fact. Do they fuck! How bleeding naïve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 1 hour ago, kowenicki said: YOU be honest. The deficit has gone from over £100bn per annum to £15bn per annum. So the rate that debt is increasing has slowed very, very dramatically and is on course to create a surplus which will then begin to reduce debt. That's the honest and complete answer. Every Labour government has left the country with more debt and higher unemployment than at the start of their tenure. Every one. Only last month the treasury had to borrow £10 billion and since 2010 the debt has jumped substantially from around £900million to £1.7 trillion. If Tories lose this election that will be part of their legacy. No government has borrowed more money in the history of the UK. On a more pragmatic note it would be fair to say whichever government come in is going to put taxes as up as public finances are struggling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, ChaddySmoker said: Do they fuck! How bleeding naïve. Of course they do, unless they find a way of sacrificing a very, very large proportion of their salary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 14 minutes ago, Stevie_J said: £10,946.20 in 2009 = £13,878.57 in 2017 (based on 3% inflation). £14,780 - £13,878.57 = £901.43 (or £17/week). If you consider that VAT was increased to 20% from January 2010 and factor in cuts to benefits, tax credits and council tax allowance, I don't imagine many minimum wagers are feeling the significant benefit. Inflation hasn't touched 3% for 5 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtobeWozzer Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 11 minutes ago, Stevie_J said: Of course they do, unless they find a way of sacrificing a very, very large proportion of their salary. Salary sacrifice is not what it used to be! Assuming the 2 employees in question are on PAYE at the same tax code, somebody on 100k will pay around 10x the employee on 20k in tax and NI. They will still have 4x the take home pay of course at around 1265 to 324. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtobeWozzer Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said: Salary sacrifice is not what it used to be! Assuming the 2 employees in question are on PAYE at the same tax code, somebody on 100k will pay around 10x the employee on 20k in tax and NI. They will still have 4x the take home pay of course at around 1265 to 324. Somebody self employed on 100k a year is likely to be paying much less that 10x the salaried employee on 20k and if they are they need a new accountant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 The proof a higher top rate of tax wouldn't raise more money lies in Gordon Brown not doing it for 13 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 36 minutes ago, kowenicki said: On the general tax point of higher earners should pay more... Do do people understand how percentages and thresholds work? Do people understand that someone earning 100k pays a lot more than 5 x the tax of someone earning 20k. I'm not sure vast swathes of the population get even this basic fact. 18 minutes ago, Stevie_J said: Of course they do, unless they find a way of sacrificing a very, very large proportion of their salary. 3 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said: Salary sacrifice is not what it used to be! Assuming the 2 employees in question are on PAYE at the same tax code, somebody on 100k will pay around 10x the employee on 20k in tax and NI. They will still have 4x the take home pay of course at around 1265 to 324. I disagree with high earners having to pay a higher percentage than the rest of us but, they'll be fine. While they might be a bit miffed at having their rate of tax increased it doesn't really affect their standard of living. Although some will probably tighten their belts a bit and spend less which is good for nobody. As soon as Labour have to revert to type (which they will) and go against their manifesto pledge to not increase taxation for the lower paid that extra 5p in the pound (if we're lucky) will make a huge difference to someone on £10k, £15k or £20k. Not to mention the increase in cost of goods and services as a result of companies passing on tax increases and reduced profits from consumers (rich or not so rich) having less to spend. Not to mention the probable reduction in tax take as companies and high earners start to pay closer attention to their affairs due to what they view as onerous rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Just now, leeslover said: The proof a higher top rate of tax wouldn't raise more money lies in Gordon Brown not doing it for 13 years. Unleash the Laffer Curve.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 14 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said: Somebody self employed on 100k a year is likely to be paying much less that 10x the salaried employee on 20k and if they are they need a new accountant! £20,000 - £11500 personal tax allowance = £8500. £8500 x 20% income tax = £1700 £100,000 - £11500 = £88500 £55k of it at 40% = £22000 £33500 of it at 20% = £6700 £28700 total income tax. £28700/£1700 = 16.8 times. That new accountant would be worth his/her weight in gold if he/she could get that down to 10x..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 8 minutes ago, HarryBosch said: That new accountant would be worth his/her weight in gold I can give you his name if you like. Talking bollocks again, Harry 50 minutes ago, Stevie_J said: Of course they do, unless they find a way of sacrificing a very, very large proportion of their salary. Like other shareholders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 21 minutes ago, HarryBosch said: Unleash the Laffer Curve.. But don't apply it like they did in Kansas! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 9 minutes ago, ChaddySmoker said: I can give you his name if you like. Talking bollocks again, Harry Go on.....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 9 minutes ago, opinions4u said: But don't apply it like they did in Kansas! Look up Tennessee..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtobeWozzer Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 31 minutes ago, HarryBosch said: £20,000 - £11500 personal tax allowance = £8500. £8500 x 20% income tax = £1700 £100,000 - £11500 = £88500 £55k of it at 40% = £22000 £33500 of it at 20% = £6700 £28700 total income tax. £28700/£1700 = 16.8 times. That new accountant would be worth his/her weight in gold if he/she could get that down to 10x..... You seem to live in a world without national insurance - I can point you to the hmrc calculator I use if you like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.